The US debt is about $14 trillion of which about $11 trillion is owed to US citizens.

I can't see anyone who hopes to be re-elected refusing to repay that money.

The vast majority of that $11 Trillion that is "owed" to US citizens is owed to Baby Boomers. When the Millinials grow up, they will be a larger voting block than the Boomers; but before then there will be a point that we cross paths, as the Boomers die off and Millinials reach 18 years there will come a point that the votes are in balance. It's this point that those who hope to get (re)elected will be pandering to the Millinal generation. And if there is one thing that is consistant about that generation, they identify much more with their age peers than their grandparents. Once one guy gets elected with a platform that can be boiled down to "screw the old, I want mine" then it's all just a matter of time.

Problem is, those grandparents are still Millinials' grandparents, and those Millinials would likely still have the government support their grandparents than have them move in with them.

The US debt is about $14 trillion of which about $11 trillion is owed to US citizens.

I can't see anyone who hopes to be re-elected refusing to repay that money.

The vast majority of that $11 Trillion that is "owed" to US citizens is owed to Baby Boomers. When the Millinials grow up, they will be a larger voting block than the Boomers; but before then there will be a point that we cross paths, as the Boomers die off and Millinials reach 18 years there will come a point that the votes are in balance. It's this point that those who hope to get (re)elected will be pandering to the Millinal generation. And if there is one thing that is consistant about that generation, they identify much more with their age peers than their grandparents. Once one guy gets elected with a platform that can be boiled down to "screw the old, I want mine" then it's all just a matter of time.

Problem is, those grandparents are still Millinials' grandparents, and those Millinials would likely still have the government support their grandparents than have them move in with them.

They might, but Boomers are too proud to move in with their children or grandchildren like their own grandparents often did. So I really don't see this happening on any great scale.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

The US debt is about $14 trillion of which about $11 trillion is owed to US citizens.

I can't see anyone who hopes to be re-elected refusing to repay that money.

The vast majority of that $11 Trillion that is "owed" to US citizens is owed to Baby Boomers. When the Millinials grow up, they will be a larger voting block than the Boomers; but before then there will be a point that we cross paths, as the Boomers die off and Millinials reach 18 years there will come a point that the votes are in balance. It's this point that those who hope to get (re)elected will be pandering to the Millinal generation. And if there is one thing that is consistant about that generation, they identify much more with their age peers than their grandparents. Once one guy gets elected with a platform that can be boiled down to "screw the old, I want mine" then it's all just a matter of time.

Very true. But "Vote for me and I'll help you steal your Granny's savings!" is hardly an election winner is it ? Its far more likely that inflation will erode the debt in a slow but sure manner.

1) It would never be presented like that and...

2) that's not how it really is anyway.

As I have already mentioned, Granny doesn't have any savings, because the government has been robbing her savings the entire time to pay for her parents' retirement and other current costs. So, in the long run, the Millinials are going to look at it like ending SS is just ending an ongoing fraud. They might feel for their own grandparents, but most middle class Millinials grew up with parents who were finacially burdened, while their nearly retired grandparents had accumulated vast assests, regardless of how good their retirement plan was. Most of them aren't going to buy the crap that ending FICA taxes upon themselves (thus ending SS) is going to actually result in Granny eating dog food. More likely she might have to move out of the $350,000 home that was paid for and into either a much smaller apartment or a retirement community. Granny doesn't drive anywhere but church and the grocery store in that Caddy her late husband bought anyway.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

I think you misunderstand what the government debt is. In simple terms, its people's savings. If the government defaults, it is breaking a contract with its own people. Now we both know this happens all the time in poor countries but its not necessarily a wise route unless you want the US to become a poor country too.

I think you misunderstand what the government debt is. In simple terms, its people's savings. If the government defaults, it is breaking a contract with its own people. Now we both know this happens all the time in poor countries but its not necessarily a wise route unless you want the US to become a poor country too.

Savings equals capital.

Debt does not equal capital.

Therefore government debt is not savings.

Any such savings has already been stolen. Furthermore, if the repudiation of government debt results in the nation becomeing 'poor' by any metric, then it already is and simply hasn't come to that conclusion yet.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

I think you misunderstand what the government debt is. In simple terms, its people's savings. If the government defaults, it is breaking a contract with its own people. Now we both know this happens all the time in poor countries but its not necessarily a wise route unless you want the US to become a poor country too.

Savings equals capital.

Debt does not equal capital.

Therefore government debt is not savings.

Any such savings has already been stolen. Furthermore, if the repudiation of government debt results in the nation becomeing 'poor' by any metric, then it already is and simply hasn't come to that conclusion yet.

Debt does not equal capital. ?

What are you talking about? If I have £1000 and its invested in a government bond, the government debt is my capital.

I think you misunderstand what the government debt is. In simple terms, its people's savings. If the government defaults, it is breaking a contract with its own people. Now we both know this happens all the time in poor countries but its not necessarily a wise route unless you want the US to become a poor country too.

I live in a poor country, the Philippines, but we've never defaulted on our debt. Most of our debt though is to foreign lenders. We were under the Marcos dictatorship for decades and have a lot of bloated crony bank accounts filled with public money, as well as a lot of white elephants (we have a nuclear power plant which was never used but that the government still dutifully paid billions of dollars for), to show for it.

When democracy was reestablished by a peaceful revolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EDSA_Revolution_of_1986) our creditors gave the new government the option to write off our debts since most of the funds lent to Marcos went to him personally (and were used by him for his personal gain) and not the nation. The government refused though and said the Philippines will pay as, despite how the loans were misused, they were still taken out in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The name and reputation of the country were on the line and if the government contracted a loan then there was no ifs or buts about it, we would pay.

This debt burden caused a lot of economic hardship and still does. Even now, the proposed national budget for 2012 has debt payments at around 20% of the entire budget. Still, we pay, and continue to pay, because it is the name of our country at stake. We may be poor but we are not thieves who promise to pay and then don't.

I'm not arguing with the point that poor countries are more likely to default, that's a fact. There are some poor countries though who will endure great sacrifice in order to meet obligations they contracted, to prove that they are not beggars who receive handouts but upright citizens of the world community who receive loans and pay back those loans.

It's fashionable now for citizens of rich countries, Greece, America, Italy, ad infinitum, to complain that they should just forget about the nation's public debt because they personally have not benefited from it. When I see these scenes I can't help but think what they are afraid of is not penury but sacrifice. The average citizen of the first world enjoys an immensely comfortable lifestyle compared to those in the developing world. You have benefited from it, in advanced forms of social policy like social nets (ie. entitlements) and reinforcement of the rule of law, to very basic things like being assured that your roads won't devolve into a moonscape of potholes after a strong rain.

Now that the bill has come in for all this largesse, citizens of rich countries just want to wash their hands of the whole mess and walk away?

That was noble, to accept the burdens imposed upon your nation by unscrupulous leadership. However, the situation is not comparable. You are a small nation that owned most of it to other nations. We are a large nation that owes most of our debt to our own eldest population. In effect, the youth were saddled with debt obligations owed to their own grandparents before they were even born. This is fundamentally unjust. Moreso than even the Philipino people being saddled with debt owed to other nations without their consent.

"The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent meetings and conferences. The apex of the systems was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations. Each central bank...sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."